Ron Paul to Form Exploratory Committee for 2012 Election

Amidst a great deal of speculation and excitement, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), the venerable “Dr. No” of Congress is scheduled to announce the formation of an exploratory committee for the 2012 presidential race in Iowa on Tuesday. Paul joins a number of other potential candidates who have formed exploratory committees and one, former Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who has officially filed as a candidate.

Paul’s decision to become involved in the primary process is timely because candidates who wish to participate in the upcoming Republican debate in South Carolina on May 5th need to have formed an exploratory committee as well as polling at 1% in national polls and paying a $25,000 entry fee in order to qualify. South Carolina is a key state in the 2012 race with the third earliest primary. It has played a key role in previous elections, particularly the 2000 Republican Primary where it was the break-out point for George W. Bush’s candidacy.

Dr. Paul did well in several early primaries when he ran for president in 2008 and ended up coming in 4th overall with 5.6% of the Republican vote. Since then he has seen many of his arguments vindicated by events and the party has moved closer to his fiscally conservative and socially libertarian views. The failure of the McCain candidacy in 2008 and the inability of the party to produce many credible candidates as 2012 approaches suggests that Paul’s clear message, established reputation and success at grassroots fundraising could give him an edge in the primary.

Since 2008 the legacy of Paul’s campaign has produced a resurgence of influence for Goldwater-style Liberty Republicans and a fiercely loyal movement supporting another Paul run for the presidency. It helped launch the Tea Party movement, put Paul’s son Rand in the Senate from Kentucky and has elected numerous other Liberty Republicans to federal and state offices. Of the Tea Party associated candidates who were elected in 2010, about a third to a half were clearly identifiable as Liberty Republicans and were endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus which is the leading organization promoting libertarian principles within the Republican Party.

As a result of Paul’s success in 2008 and the grassroots victories of the 2010 election, the Republican field of candidates for 2012 is much more libertarian-leaning than it was in 2008. Governor Gary Johnson is arguably as libertarian as Paul is, though his style of libertarianism is somewhat different. Businessman and radio host Herman Cain is a libertarian-leaning conservative and has also announced and exploratory committee. Governors Mitch Daniels and John Huntsman are also both on the libertarian side of the Republican mainstream and are considering entering the race, though neither has an exploratory committee yet.

These candidates are less well known, but like Paul their dedication to fiscal conservatism and limited government puts them in clear contrast to the supposed frontrunners in the race like former Governors Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. The frontrunners have establishment connections and name recognition which give them clout, but also have baggage and histories of past actions which may put them at a fatal disadvantage in a general election, even against an increasingly unpopular Barack Obama.

In this field, Paul’s entry as a strong voice for a different kind of Republican Party, with his advocacy of an end to foreign wars, substantial spending cuts and Constitutionally limited government, will make a significant difference. His candidacy will help set the tone for the campaign, pitting old guard insiders and the party elite against grassroots reformers and libertarians. It will help to focus the debate on fiscal responsibility and individual liberty, making it more difficult for candidates to campaign on divisive social issues or by pandering to special interest groups.

Whether Ron Paul wins the nomination or not, his involvement in the process will help produce a better outcome for the Republican Party by weakening the party establishment and putting the focus on the traditional Republican values of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty.

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.” – Ron Paul, 1992

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” – Ron Paul, 1992

“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” – Ron Paul, 1992

“Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.” Ron Paul, 1981

“Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.”

Dave, I know this comment has made your head explode…but this is the guy you’re supporting, and it is flat wrong to ignore what he has done and said in the past and somehow assume that he’s all better now. Can a racist change his ways? Sure – I’m proof of that. But before one can do so, one must first own up to his racist past…and AFAIK Paul hasn’t done so. I am loath to trust any man who denies his obvious racism who – without owning up to what he has certainly done – claims he’s not at all racist.

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

Glenn, is there no limit to your arrogance and foolishness? This is a news article, not a plug for Ron Paul. You’re very mistaken if you think he’s the candidates I’m supporting as my first choice in this GOP primary.

And all the stuff you bring up? I was the one who brought it up first here on BC in 2008. Go look through the archives.

Make my head explode? Hardly.

But for the record and for fairness, I have to point out that Ron Paul did not actually write any of the racist stuff attributed to him. It appeared under his name in his newsletter but Lew Rockwell wrote it and I despise Rockwell in every possible way.

Paul’s main mistake is in trying to brush it under the rug and not severing all ties with Rockwell long ago.

Dave

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

Glenn:

Ron Paul didn’t write that stuff. It was written in his newsletter by someone else. This has been known for a long time. You’re just smearing him.

Now isn’t it true that you moved to the Philippines just to get away from American blacks? Because you hate them? PROVE ME WRONG!

(See how a smear works?)

Glenn Contrarian

RJ – ‘scuse you – I’m still in western Washington.

And to both of you, that’s why I included the blurb that strongly indicates that Paul DID write the articles if only in the beginning…and in any case he DID make the racist statements I quoted above. The guy is a racist, plain and simple.

Glenn Contrarian

And Dave – seems to me you do like Ron Paul – quite a bit, actually. It’s a pain to copy and paste stuff on an iPhone, but you posted a retort on Paul’s site saying how you were excited that he might be running and that your RLC (that you chair) has supported him for twenty years…

…which would include the times that he made the racist statements I listed above. When I get the chance on my Mac, I’ll post your comment and the link to it.

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

“in any case he DID make the racist statements I quoted above.”

You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Those weren’t “statements.” That was stuff written in a newsletter. And it was written by someone else.

But since we are (for some reason) on the subject of racist politicians, how about that guy you voted for a few years ago who spent the majority of his adult life attending a black nationalist hate cult in Chicago?

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”

That ‘time’ would be 1992, btw – which I guess was when Paul thought it was okay to make racist statements.

So, um, RJ – could it actually be that you were fed some Kool-Aid and didn’t know it? Apparently so, because you also bought into the completely false ‘black nationalist hate cult’ claim that your fellow neocons love to purport.

Ah – but I forgot! The facts are whatever YOU determine them to be! Oh, silly me….

Glenn Contrarian

And for Dave –

But for the record and for fairness, I have to point out that Ron Paul did not actually write any of the racist stuff attributed to him. It appeared under his name in his newsletter but Lew Rockwell wrote it and I despise Rockwell in every possible way.

I refer you to the same quote in comment #8 – because Ron Paul apparently thinks he wrote those comments! You know, I might have agreed that there’s no proof that Paul made those comments…but then I read Paul’s admission.

And when it comes to whether you support Ron Paul, I’d rather take the words you posted on dailypaul.com:

Ian, that first line is a gross mischaracterization of what I did. I got overexcited by the news that Dr. Paul was seriously considering a Senate run here in Texas – an office I think he would have a very good chance of winning. I certainly was not trying to undermine his CPAC efforts.

We have the luxury this year of having at least two excellent pro-liberty candidates considering a presidential run, so if Dr. Paul decides to do something different and in some ways more exciting we’re very lucky that we’ll (hopefully) still have Gov. Gary Johnson in the race to push most of the same issues and hold the other candidates to a high standard.

The RLC supports Ron Paul as we have for 20+ years and you should know that’s true. I voted for him in ’88 and in 2008 and would love another opportunity to do so.

Why do so many want to fight over this when we should be rejoicing that our message has become so much more accepted?

Clavos

Actually, Glenn, ther quote you cite in #8 does not say that Ron Paul thinks he wrote those comments; in fact, the only actual quote you gave (as identified by quotation marks) only says that Paul said that the comments in question were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”

That quote in no way has Paul admitting anything about the authorship of the quotes.

Not that quote.

And, in fact, the essay from which you plucked that quote alleges but in no way proves Paul wrote those words.

Dave alleges that the words were written by Lew Rockwell.

So who’s right?

Glenn Contrarian

Clavos –

Look again at the quote: Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”

“…his written commentaries…”

Not only does that strongly imply that he wrote those statements, but remember that it was written under his name in his newsletter. Note that at NO point does he deny that he wrote those particular quotes, nor does he deny his responsibility for those being published in his newsletter.

It wasn’t until several years later that Ron Paul decided to claim that Rockwell made those statements…so which is more believable? What Ron Paul said in 1996 when the Houston Chronicle first brought the quotes to light? Or five years later when he finally denied that he ever wrote them…when his political goals had become much higher?

Furthermore, Ron Paul is closely connected with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute – read about it here. the Institute was founded by a guy named Murray Rothbard…and the article shows that Rothbard was an unabashed racist. The article includes a quote by Mr. Rothbard concerning the “negro revolution”:

There are two ways by which it might be crip­pled and defeated. First, the retal­ia­tory cre­ation of a white counter-revolutionary mass move­ment, equally deter­mined and mil­i­tant. In short, by the re-creation of the kind of Ku Klux Klan that smashed Recon­struc­tion and the Negro move­ment in the late 19th cen­tury. Since whites are in the major­ity, they have the capac­ity to do this if they have the will. But the will, in my opin­ion, is gone; this is not the 19th cen­tury, nor even the 1920’s. White opin­ion, as we have seen, has dras­ti­cally shifted from racism to egal­i­tar­i­an­ism; even the South­ern whites, par­tic­u­larly the edu­cated lead­er­ship, con­cede the broad merit of the Negro cause; and, finally, mob action no longer has respectabil­ity in our soci­ety. There have been attempts, to be sure, at mass counter-revolutionary white action: the Ku Klux leader in Geor­gia told a rally that “we must fight poi­son with poi­son,” armed con­flict between white and Negro mobs has bro­ken out in Cam­bridge, Mary­land, and white hood­lums have repeat­edly assaulted Negro pick­ets in the Bronx. But all this is a fee­ble replica of the kind of white action that would be nec­es­sary to defeat the rev­o­lu­tion; and it seems almost impos­si­ble for action to be gen­er­ated on the required scale.

And here Dave refers to Murray Rothbard as a “modern guru of the libertarian movement”.

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

Glenn:

1) I’m not a neocon. I don’t think you know what that term means. Pro-Tip: Neocons pretty much universally hate Ron Paul.

2) Ron Paul explains why he “defended” the stuff written in those newsletters back in 1992 here.

3) A number of people with knowledge of the situation claim that the newsletters in question were ghostwritten by Lew Rockwell.

4) Barack Obama’s “church” of 20 years featured claims from the pastor that white people invented AIDS to kill blacks, screams of “God Damn America!,” denunciations of “rich white people,” claims that Jesus was a black man murdered by whites, blaming the United States for 9/11 five days after the attacks, and special honors given to openly-racist Nation Of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The church’s teachings were based on black liberation theology. James Cone is an influential advocate for black liberation theology. How does Cone explain it? In his own words, blacks are “the chosen people” who will only accept a god who assists their aim of destroying the “white enemy.” “If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.” To me, that sounds like a racist hate cult.

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

Glenn:

Ron Paul has never claimed that Lew Rockwell wrote those newsletters. Ron Paul hasn’t named names. But half a dozen others who are in a position to know have named Rockwell as the writer.

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

Let’s see if I understand your thinking here, Glenn.

– Elderly Congressman with almost no chance of becoming President is accused of writing some politically-incorrect racially-charged stuff 19 years ago in a newsletter that only a few thousand people read. The evidence is mixed at best, but what the hell, let’s just keep calling him a hateful racist over and over and over again!

– Current President undeniably attended a “church” for 20 years in which the pastor made anti-American statements, played the race card repeatedly, and engaged in racial conspiracy theorizing. The President wrote a book titled after one of this pastor’s controversial sermons, was married by this pastor, had his daughters baptized by this pastor, and at one time considered him a spiritual adviser. To Glenn, all these well-known facts are “completely false” stuff that “neocons love to purport.”

As for the Von Mises Institute: I’m a supporter and a subscriber, and I find no trace of racism in anything they write or publish; they are all about destroying statism and make no bones about it. It was founded by Von Mises’ widow, who was its chairman until her death. The current chair is Lew Rockwell. Rothbard’s position was academic VP until he died.

And finally, Rothbard is clearly not advocating racism in your final “quote,” not even in the part you were kind enough to highlight for us rubes. On the contrary, the small bit quoted in your comment appears to be a part of a larger discussion of how racism is dying out in this country, not an advocacy.

From what you quoted, this, in particular argues against racism:

White opin­ion, as we have seen, has dras­ti­cally shifted from racism to egal­i­tar­i­an­ism; even the South­ern whites, par­tic­u­larly the edu­cated lead­er­ship, con­cede the broad merit of the Negro cause; and, finally, mob action no longer has respectabil­ity in our soci­ety.

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

Ok, I met Murray Rothbard and have worked with many people who knew him much better than I did and I have no reason to think Rothbard was a racist. He had absolutely egregious political instincts, but I don’t believe he was personally a racist. He did, however, sign on for a political strategy promoted by associates in the 1980s and 1990s which certainly incorporated racism.

I certainly share some of Glenn’s concerns about the von Mises institute, which is basically the brainchild of Lew Rockwell, the same guy who wrote the racist quotes in question. Glenn, do you see how this comes round again to Rockwell?

Rockwell has a long history of racist statements of all sorts, though most would be characterized as racially insensitive rather than real hate speech. He’s also a homophobe and a marginal southern nationalist and holds some other unsavory beliefs. The only racist quotes ever attributed to Ron Paul came from that newsletter in the early 90s which was written and edited by Rockwell, including writing under Paul’s name. I think that tells the whole story.

Dave Weigel’s piece in Reason is pretty definitive. I know a number of the people quoted in it and they generally agree that Rockwell was the main instigator of the attempt to court bigots and that Paul took a more hands-off approach.

That said, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the whole paleolibertarian/paleoconservative movement. That they could back Buchanan and be so supportive of Rockwell says a lot about them and none of it good. However, that wing of the movement also includes a lot of good people and in building coalitions I do want to work with them where our interests coincide. And in the current environment the areas of common ground, particularly on fiscal issues, is particularly important.

Dave

Boeke

RJ: this kind of tu quoque is invalid on two grounds: ad hominem and a red herring. But it seems to be reflexive with some people. Please deal with the original assertion.

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

Boeke:

First, I’ve already dealt with Glenn’s assertion and debunked it.

Second, it’s not an example of tu quoque because I’m arguing that Ron Paul isn’t a racist, while Obama…well, at the very least Obama is very comfortable with racists. It would be an example of tu quoque if I was saying that, yeah, Ron Paul is a racist, sure, but that’s okay because so is Obama. But that’s not what I’m saying.

Glenn Contrarian

Clavos and Dave –

So let’s give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt – he didn’t write it. But it was written in his name in his newsletter not just once or twice, but over a period of years…which tells me that in any case he is responsible. Both of you, as respected editors, should understand better than I how unlikely it is that a man would allow someone else to write racist articles in his name, in his newsletter, over a period of years. If he’d been somehow indisposed over those years – coma, prison, amnesiac, overseas sabbatical – I could understand it. But he wasn’t, and there is no possible excuse. He knew it, he allowed it, and – by his lack of action – approved of it. IMO Ron Paul is a racist.

BTW, Dave – please don’t take my mention of your opinion of Rothbard as some kind of hint that I think you’re racist. I don’t, and I have no reason to think so, and I shouldn’t have posted that link, and please accept my apology. I think this is more akin to how I felt about my family acquaintance Senator James O. Eastland, who I thought was a great man up until 2006, long after I’d become a liberal Democrat. It wasn’t until 2006 (give or take a year) that I learned just how racist he was, and how he used his position to enshrine forms of racism that still exist today (see the Conservative Citizens Council and the almost completely white private school system in MS).

Dave, even if you believe that Paul’s a racist, I suspect that you’ll still support him because (1) he’s too popular and too well-known among libertarians, and (2) his son’s a rising star on the Right. In other words, as someone with significant political duties and pull among libertarians (and to a lesser extent among the Republicans), you’re trapped into supporting Paul whether you like him or not.

And it’s because of all this that I don’t envy you at all. I think the position I see you in is why I’ll never consider getting deeply involved in politics.

Glenn Contrarian

RJ –

No, you didn’t ‘debunk’ anything I’ve said. Your total lack of objectivity shows me that you’re not worth my time. Clavos and Dave are, for they gained my respect a long time ago.

“Barack Obama’s “church” of 20 years featured claims from the pastor that white people invented AIDS to kill blacks, screams of “God Damn America!,” denunciations of “rich white people,” claims that Jesus was a black man murdered by whites, blaming the United States for 9/11 five days after the attacks, and special honors given to openly-racist Nation Of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.”

the aids claim is probably true, but only for gay blacks, and probably not at all, and god damn america (bless it too), rich white people suck (fuck em), and jesus was probably pretty swarthy (if he existed at all), and the u.s. did deserve 9/11 (you get what you pay for, or years of stealing*), and god bless farrakhan (fuck you).

do you really think a church is the measure of a man? fuck off. no politician is religious. would a christian get into this game? they just do that to fucking placate you fools. obama is as christian as i am. he’ll play to it when mom or the elections ask him to, but it’s not on his plate. so get off it. religion is for idiots.

*do you think we did nothing to provoke them? wake up.

Boeke

RJ: it’s classic tu quoque.

I learned that 50 years ago in an exciting and amusing lecture at Notre Dame (Belmont) by Wm. F. Buckley.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

Boeke:

I suggest you look up the definition of the term, and glance at some examples.

Or, stay ignorant. Your choice.

http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

“the aids claim is probably true”

Ah, I didn’t realize you were a crazy conspiracy theorist, zing. Good to know.

And a racist, too! Interesting that the two racists on this thread are both leftists (although Glenn says he’s only a “former” racist).

“the u.s. did deserve 9/11″

The least-surprising thing is that you’re anti-American. I frankly expect leftists to hate the US. Still, worth pointing out, I suppose.

“jesus was probably pretty swarthy”

Swarthy != black. Jesus was a Jew. Saying Jesus was black is like saying Bill Maher is black. (Lord, forgive me for comparing the two…)

“religion is for idiots”

And of course the hate-filled leftist is an atheist bigot. Yawn.

Baronius

My hunch is that Zing is right about Obama’s lack of interest in religion, based on his comments and actions. I’ve always felt like he approaches like the son of an anthropologist, as an analytical outsider. I wouldn’t use Wright’s statements as an indicator of Obama’s beliefs, but as an indicator of Obama’s comfort level and social circle.

Baronius

– he approaches religion like –

zingzing

“Ah, I didn’t realize you were a crazy conspiracy theorist, zing. Good to know.”

i realize reading an entire sentence is difficult, but please try it.

“And a racist, too!”

but some of my best friends are white…

“The least-surprising thing is that you’re anti-American.”

read the bit after the asterisk. it’s not anti-american to realize we aren’t guiltless.

“Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.”

RJ, whether or not you successfully debunked Glenn’s original argument is irrelevant. You’re guilty of tu quoque because rather than let your case stand on its own merit, you resorted to fallacious tactics.

http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

swarthy means “dark,” but it doesn’t necessarily mean black.

Technically, it does. The word derives from the old English sweart, meaning black. (Cf. German schwarz.)

You’re correct, though, zing, in regard to its modern English usage.

[This has been your daily nerd bulletin. We now return you to your regularly scheduled fist-waving and table-thumping.]

http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

Diversionary attack, whether tu quoque or otherwise, is consistently RJ’s method. It is from the Frat Boy Law Student school of debate. The fun is in the arguing, the putdown and the gotcha, not in actually having a conversation or a productive discussion. This turns every political disagreement into a football game, or WWE match.

By the way, Bill Maher is not Jewish.

zingzing

“Technically, it does. The word derives from the old English sweart, meaning black. (Cf. German schwarz.)”

i see your schwarz compares to mine. and dude, did you know that “dude” is the hair on an elephant’s behind?

“This has been your daily nerd bulletin.”

i wish you had said “geek,” as then you’d be pulling heads off chickens at the circus. i guess my point is that etymology is not always to be trusted. but, as rj ably points out, technicalities are useful tools when being dishonest.

“You’re correct, though, zing, in regard to its modern English usage.”

which is probably how i would be using it, me being contemporary to me. yup, yup, he said, sardonically, as if he were about to be sacrificed to… damn it, i can’t recall. prolly some swarthy greek.

zingzing

handy: “By the way, Bill Maher is not Jewish.”

was that a “gotcha”?

anyway, i’d like to see a depiction of jesus as he is literally described in the bible, with the flaming eyes, white hair and brass feet, spitting up swords and skin boiling like the surface of the sun.

that said, you know it was damn hot where he was, and they didn’t really have good sunscreen back then, so i’m guessing his complexion was something like snooki’s.

Baronius

If we’re listing fallacies, don’t forget the “fallacy fallacy”. It’s the one where you identify one fallacy in your opponent’s argument and don’t bother responding to the rest of it. I personally have no idea whether Ron Paul is a racist, but RJ did raise some solid objections to the claim, and you’re committing a form of the ad hominem fallacy by responding to his person rather than his argument.

Boeke is correct about the tu quoque fallacy. As to Paul’s racism or racist commentary, whomever the author who loaded Paul’s lips, what difference does it make? The man is not a candidate. Dave’s affinity for him is stated and RJ’s hatred of the president is clear.

His preferred financial policies are clear and consistent, I’ll give him that, and he’s entertaining on TV. But those policies would have consequences, which both he and his slipperier, more odious son either ignore or claim are exaggerations by ‘leftists.’

There are a lot of utterly non-leftist stock and bond traders on Wall St watching very nervously to see if these loons will actually try to prevent the raising of the debt ceiling — thus sending us straight back into a financial panic as bad as or worse than fall 2008.

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of “argument” has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Mentioning Barack Obama’s seedy racial past is perfectly relevant when discussing the alleged seedy racial past of a guy who is running for President against…Barack Obama.

Paul is definitely not a racist. Some things that were attributed to him were certainly not written by him.

The de-facto military draft and the war on drugs are staunchly opposed by Paul. And these programs are hugely destructive to minorities.

zingzing

“When you write it, zing, it is.”

now i know i’m only giving you as much pleasure as i’m giving myself, and for that i thank you, rj. you like to argue much like myself: idioticallishyesque.

i would like you to explain why you chose to lop off the end of the sentence in question in the comment you wrote [23] about the comment i wrote [22] about the comment you wrote [95], this comment [3] being the response to that comment’s [0] comment’s [23] comment [%].

here is the sentence: “the aids claim is probably true, but only for gay blacks, and probably not at all.”

it’s bad business attacking someone over the clear opposite of what that person said, and fallacies aren’t allowed. you argue incorrectly, and therefore i reject everything you have to say.

but i do admit i’ve been taken.

Boeke

#31 by DD is illuminating:

“However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.”

Tu quoque IS a good debating trick, but it is easily dispelled simply by pointing it out. Well, it is easily dispelled among the literate.

http://blogcritics.org/writers/joseph-cotto/ Joseph Cotto

Ron Paul for President! Let’s see if we can best Alf Landon’s spectacular performance against FDR back in ’36! If such a thing is at all possible, then the Good Doctor is most certainly the GOP’s foremost go-to guy.

Once the word gets out about L. Ron’s past racial statements, as well as his hanging around with the subhumans which founded Stormfront, and, to top it all off, his insane foreign policy views, he will be yesterday’s news. If any libertarian Republicans out there want a real candidate, as in one who will not self destruct in a manner which would make Barry Goldwater’s campaign look like a smashing success, then I would highly recommend a look at Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico. He, in my opinion, has the potential to be a fantastic nominee, though only time shall tell about this for sure.

“civility is exactly what is necessary in the American political realm, perhaps now more than at any other time in modern history.”

“All anyone seems to want these days is a shouting match …”

“I cannot recall a period which even comes close to rivaling the levels of sheer insanity which have been put forth since the conclusion of the 2008 presidential election …”

“things have become considerably worse across the fruited plains as the rhetoric and absolutism have increased …”

Joseph Cotto, today:

Ron Paul is an insane racist who hangs out with subhumans.

My irony meter, just now:

Exploding.

Boeke

RJ #48: you misquoted Cotto. I couldn’t find anyplace where he said “Ron Paul is an insane racist who hangs out with subhumans”. But I found where he says “Once the word gets out about L. Ron’s past racial statements,…”, which merely suggests that readers may change their minds upon reading Pauls statements, it doesn’t accuse him of being a racist.

So I concluded that you were exaggerating Cottos statements for dramatic effect, not quoting him. Am I right?

Baronius

Good call, RJ. There’s a tendency within any camp of caricaturing or bad-mouthing the opposition, and the moderate camp is no different. One can be moderate in one’s viewpoint but immoderate in one’s rhetoric. I always think of Arlen Specter in that regard.

It’s a more subtle temptation for the middle than for the hard left or right. The extremes fortify themselves by defending each other (or competing to be most extreme); they have a good sense that they’re partisan. The middle can detest everyone that isn’t as middle as they are, and believe that by doing so they’re the kindest and most open people around. I’m not saying that Joseph goes that far, but I do think it’s hard to identify that failure in oneself. An extemist in his quiet moments asks himself if he’s too extreme. A moderate doesn’t have a similar question.

http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

[Insane] foreign wars are good because I’m either a neocon or an Obama fan!
: [Insane] foreign wars are good because they kill foreigners
::
Ron Paul is a racist.
: Barack Obama is a Kenyan.